As blogswarms go, the Clinton interview on Fox News Sunday rates about a 7 on the 10 point Rathergate Meter, easily the biggest blog brouhaha of the year. There may have been larger stories. But for sheer emotionalism, it’s hard to beat Clinton and his dredging up the old conspiracy theories about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy out to get him. It cheers the left and riles the right like no other issue in American politics. In many ways, the unhinged opposition to the Bush Presidency is a direct result of the twin earthquakes of Clinton’s impeachment followed almost immediately by the 2000 election debacle, both events seen by the left in the context of evil conservatives attempting power plays at the expense of the Democrats.

Of course, the right views any talk of this “conspiracy” with a mixture of laughter and contempt. Unless one wants to accuse the Republican party of being a “conspiracy” or like minded conservative individuals and organizations working together to oust a President they believed to be corrupting the law, then the idea of any kind of secret cabal, plotting in the shadows to overthrow the government kind of loses its potency. It says volumes about both Hillary and Bill Clinton that they viewed the legitimate political activity of their opponents, most of which took place in the open and indeed, publicized to to the max as something dark and evil.

But this hearkening to the past by Clinton in his interview had a more contemporary goal; reminding Democrats and the nutroots of their shared outrage. It not only suits Clinton’s self image of the courageous Democrat standing in the breach beating back the evil Republicans who sought to bring him down (while opposing him at every turn in his anti-terrorism policies), it also rallies the left to a defense of his Presidency which may have taken a bigger hit than any of us realize thanks to the broadcast of ABC’s The Path to 9/11.

Indeed, whether the show has a political impact is beside the point; it certainly angered the ex-President who seemed eager to tee off on the bemused Wallace. The Fox reporter sat in his seat dumbfounded as the former most powerful man in the world wagged a beefy finger in his face and accused him of a “conservative hit job,” a remarkable accusation given that Wallace had only asked one question about Bin Laden. Coupled with the off the wall suggestion that Fox was only doing the interview with him to assuage the supposed anger of their viewership who might be upset by Rupert Murdochs support of his climate initiative, and you have a portrait of someone so self-obsessed that one can only shake their head in disbelief that someone that enthralled with himself could ever have achieved high office.

As for the diatribe itself, righty bloggers are all over Clinton’s charges made in the interview today as are some in the mainstream press. Clinton’s statement that Republicans opposed him when he sought to kill Bin Laden has been totally debunked. Jack Tapper quotes contemporary press reports that give quite a different picture of support for Clinton’s attack on Bin Laden.

I think the president did exactly the right thing,” said House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said. “By doing this we’re sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists.” Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks “appropriate and just,” and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said “the American people stand united in the face of terrorism.”

The AP says: “Gingrich dismissed any possibility that Clinton may have ordered the attacks to divert attention from the scandal. Instead, he said, there was an urgent need for a reprisal following the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. ‘Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing,’ Gingrich said. ‘It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind.’

Moreover, the story goes on to say that Gingrich adviser Rich Galen e-mailed to conservative radio talk show hosts that: “Speaker Newt Gingrich has made it clear to me” that the attacks were necessary and appropriate, Galen said. “This is a time to put our nation’s interests ahead of our political concerns. I am asking you to help your listeners, your friends, and your associates to look at this situation with the sober eyes it deserves.”

The real problem for Clinton was that the rest of the world didn’t believe him, not Republicans in Congress. And Patterico has a post that knocks down another Clinton/liberal charge; that Fox News never asked Bush Administration officials any of the same questions they asked him:

In 2004, Wallace asked almost the exact same question of Donald Rumsfeld that he asked Clinton today.

Hereâ€™s what Wallace asked Clinton today:

[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didnâ€™t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, itâ€™s more than an individual manhunt. I mean â€” what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

. . . .

What do you make of his [Richard Clarkeâ€™s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?

. . . .

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

Patterico also debunks another Clinton charge; that the Bushies were so unserious about terrorism that they fired Richard Clark, someone who, in retrospect, did indeed “get it” with regards to terrorism and Bin Laden.

Clarke was not fired; he was, in effect, demoted. When Bush took over, Clarke retained his title as â€œNational Coordinator on Counter-terrorismâ€ but Condi Rice demoted the position. After 9/11, Clarke requested a transfer out of frustration, and later left government and wrote a book, which contained bitter recriminations against Bush â€” and whose stories were elaborated and dressed up by Clarke as he hit the talk-show circuit.

So Iâ€™m left a bit baffled why Clinton thinks Clarke was â€œfired.â€ And itâ€™s clear why Fox News Sunday never asked a Bush official why Clarke was â€œfiredâ€ â€” he wasnâ€™t

No he wasn’t fired. But it is also true that Condi Rice, in an effort to marginalize Clark, downgraded his position. Rice didn’t want Clark with direct access to the President (as he had enjoyed in the Clinton Administration) because access is power in the White House and Rice was not up to sharing any with someone she looked upon with suspicion.

Regardless of whether Clinton’s charges are true or not (and most of them are not), the furor ignited by the confrontation is something the left has been dying for almost since Fox News started broadcasting. Indeed, the left would like nothing better than to use the issue to shine a light on what they perceive as the outrageous conservative bias of the Fox network.

I don’t watch much cable news anymore but when I did, I never felt that Fox’s reporting was slanted any more than CNN’s or any other network’s reporting. Even if this were the case, Fox almost always has representatives from both the right and the left to argue about the stories making news. Because of this, it has always been a mystery to me why the left feels so wronged by Fox. Prior to the practice of inviting representatives from both sides of an issue to debate it on the air, such a thing was never heard of on the nets. If CNN wanted analysis of a story, they either got another mainstream reporter to talk about it or some establishment liberal to comment. The only reason to have a conservative on was to savage him.

To this day, it puzzles me why the left goes ballistic over stories reported on Fox News. Regardless of why this is so, the liberals have been unable to get much traction with their charges – until now. When a popular ex-President says something about the bias of a network and those comments are widely disseminated throughout the country, I daresay that Clinton did more in 10 minutes to advance the left’s critique of Fox News than all their previous efforts combined.

But it is solidarity that Clinton seeks and, according to Ann Althouse, he apparently got it:

What’s struck me most, in the context of these recent events, is just how extremely protective of Clinton liberals (e.g. blogs & blog commenters) have become. This isn’t surprising, and it’s not a negative thing per se: cf. the protectiveness of Bush on the right, especially when he’s being assailed (unfairly & dishonestly, in their view) by the media. The comparison is illuminating, of course, because Bush does very little public self-defending against his harshest critics (and never complains of being ‘victimized’ by the media)—though of course commenters on the right do that for him. Clinton, with these recent actions, is (I think) trying to tap into a similar dynamic—e.g. trying to tap into the (surprising—and surprisingly mainstream) surge of protectiveness & feeling for him during the impeachment saga. (And lest we forget, that was the origin of moveon.org, wasn’t it.) . . .

I do think it’s likely that his latest public acts are a kind of strategic gamble, specifically directed at the left (rallying it for Hillary, who can then do what she needs to do to convince the center)—(and the left is eating it up aren’t they, he’s playing them like a piano)—- more likely than that this last outburst was an ‘accident’ (esp. when the questioning was so to be expected—he himself practically asked for it, in making such a big deal of the 9/11 movie).

Glenn Reynolds thinks that the Clinton blow-up will affect the elections – negatively for the Democrats. I suppose it’s possible but I think it equally likely that it will once again unite Democrats in their shared outrage at what they see as the deviltry of their political opponents.

It should be interesting to watch both Fox ratings as well as how well Republicans poll over the next few weeks. Both could tell us much about what the American people are thinking as we head down the home stretch to the elections.

I did not see the diatribe but read the transcript, but I agree “...it certainly angered the ex-President who seemed eager to tee off on the bemused Wallace.”

In fact I think that’s a bit of an understatment. That diatribe was calculated. If Wallace had asked him two or three questions, one following up on the previous one becoming more insistent, maybe I’d buy Clinton’s outrage. But this was a pretty open ended opening question. Clinton was waiting for Wallace to open the door and then unloaded when he did.

My question is about Clarke. Yes, he was not fired, he was undervalued by the Bush administration. But when you read Legacy by Lowry or Losing Bin Laden by Miniter you get the strong impression that Clarke wasn’t listened to during the Clinton administration. Certainly it seemed that during the Clinton years he was one of the very people who was serious about fighting terror. Or at least that’s the way Clarke tells it through these authors.

The problem is that it appears that Clarke’s main job right now is protecting his own legacy; portraying himself as the Cassandra no one took seriously. (Michael Scheuer – Imperial Hubris – has nothing but contempt for Clarke, though they both have nothing but contempt for Bush 43.)

I don’t understand why Clarke is harder on the Bush administration than the Clinton administration. Is his ego that fragile?

The 9-11 Commission did not conclude “If only Clinton and Bush had listened to Dick Clarke. If only Condi Rice had not been jealous of Dick Clarke’s direct access to the President. Then US policy on UBL and international terrosim would have been a resounding success. It would have terminated Bin Laden with extreme prejuidice, smashed international terror networks, finally released the secret the 3d Fatima prophecy and brought smiles to the faces of millions of toddlers everywhere.

Instead the 9-11 Commission concluded that the entire governmental apparatus of intelligence, law enforcement and decision making was systemically flawed. An effect that the average person could have foretold based on his experience with the DMV, the postal service and the IRS.

History is filled with “if onlys”. Sadly, most people tend to believe that there is “only” one chance to get things right. This belief is closely allied to the belief that “the key man” (or woman) has only once chance to influence the course of events. Rarely if ever do the facts bare this out.

I’m stunned at how illogical/unreasonable the Rice-Clarke relationship is portrayed. Richard Clarke did not walk around with a big thougt ballon over his head that read “Listen to this guy, he’s got the answer!” We really have no information about how Rice regarded Clarke.

On the one hand, my judgement as an outsider would rate Clarke is ineffective. Here is a man who had an influential position who could not create a compelling reason to take the action that today we know needed to be taken. Clarke for some reason could not make the sale. To be fair, maybe Clarke was fighting a battle that was unwinnable. He was a voice crying out in the wilderness.

Since none of us can hear what goes on inside Condi Rice’s head, how can we assume that Clarke was moved based on a bureaucratic motive? For all we know, Condi’s predecessor could have noted to her that Clarke needed a change of portfolio. We are not privy to the actual circumstances. And Clarke, the most vocal participant in these cirumstances, could be motivated more by the completely natural desire to protect his own reputation and maintain his viability as a soothsayer/subject matter expert.

I bring this up because I am baffled that Bill Clinton has now begun to wield Clarke and Clarke’s book as a shield against criticism of his administration’s policy choices. I would accept this line reasoning if Clinton had flatly stated “I should have listened to Dick Clarke.” Instead Clinton throws up Clarke’s memoir as “proof” of how serious his adminstration was. In my view what Clarke’s book shows is how un-serious the Clinton adminstration was.

Sorry Bill, eight years of failure is not much of a defense.

3

Salty Party Snax Said:
9:08 am

Speaking of conspiracy theories and a lack of anti-terrorist cooperation from the ding-a-ling Clinton hating right,check out this Free Republic “Wag the Dog” thread from 1998:

Glenn Reynolds thinks that the Clinton blow-up will affect the elections â€“ negatively for the Democrats.

Umm maybe not so much. Another Glenn disagrees. So who has been revising history now?

My post this morning on Salon concerns the accusation voiced this weekend by Chris Wallace in his Fox News interview with President Clinton (a favorite accusation of neoconservatives) that Clinton “emboldened” Al Qaeda when he withdrew American troops from Somalia as soon as we suffered casualties, which (so the neoconservative mythology contends) led Osama bin Laden to believe that we were weak and could be defeated.

As I document in the Salon post, that defense, if anything, is a profound understatement, because it was Clinton (along with Senate Democrats like John Kerry) who wanted to stay in Somalia because a precipitous withdrawal would be panicky and weak, but it was primarily conservatives in Congress—mostly Republican Senators and some conservative Southern Democrats—who were demanding that American troops be withdrawn immediately, and were even threatening to cut off all funds for our troop deployment.

I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . .

David Brock, now of Media Matters, at the time of Clinton’s impeachment a rightwing hatchet-man, (author of the “trooper-gate” story and other spurious tales) tells a story about his looking around the well of the congress at the beginning of the impeachment hearings and seeing all the players that he knew—conspired?—colluded?—participated in “legitimate political activity,” to bring events to that moment. He tells how Republicans recruited Paula Jones to file her lawsuit with the intention of laying a trap that would catch Clinton lying under oath. Brock recalls that at that moment, in the well of congress, he had a sickening feeling that told him, ‘this is not right.’

I fully expect a smear of Brock to follow, but I also believe that honest minded people hearing him tell his story find him credible and contrite.

Invoking the word conspiracy and snickering with a condescending grin is a classic rightwing deflection of any bad behavior that would require 2 or more conservatives to pull off. But, it doesn’t disprove anything. Just because Moran projects his sense of values and fair play onto the power brokers he defends does not mean that they actually share those values no matter how much Rick might wish it to be true.

Democrats have had to sit and have the collective conservative beefy finger being wagged at them while be scolded about not protecting America and being weak on terror when our own intel reveals that it is the conservatives own policies that are making us less safe by the day. So excuse us for finding it refreshing when one of ours turns the table and wags back.

6

Fritz Said:
11:27 am

The Sociopath in Chief is the gift that keeps on giving.

7

Carol Johnson Said:
1:19 pm

You know…I’m just going to leave this. Food for thought and discussion:

I found this little gem in response to the â€œclaimâ€ by Clinton, in the interview with Wallace on Fox, that no one knew much about bin Laden at that point or suspected his complicity when the black hawk down incident occured in Somalia. Not a soul, he said! Bull shit!

But, according to a detailed account of the operational planning of that attack in Yossef Bodanskyâ€™s â€œBin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America,â€ the massacre was actually the result of a well-planned, well-executed ambush by terrorist forces overseen by Osama bin Laden and supported by the governments of Sudan, Iraq and Iranâ€¦

[btw, anyone want to convince me that Saddam and bin Laden had no relationship? See above paragraph and more below. Remember, this was TEN YEARS before the Iraq war]

â€¦On Oct. 3, 1993, U.S.-U.N. forces learned about the presence of two of Aididâ€™s senior foreign policy advisers, Osman Salah and Muhammad Hassan Awali, at the Olympic Hotel. Quickly, a helicopter assault of 100 American troops was under way. The two were captured, as well as 22 other Aidid supporters.

But as the U.S. troops prepared to leave, they were caught in a well-organized ambush by more than 1,000 guerrillas. Two helicopters were shot down and a third crash-landed at Mogadishuâ€™s airport. The U.S. troops established a perimeter around the crash site, but found themselves surrounded and under heavy fire for 11 hours.

In that firefight, 18 American troops were killed, 78 were wounded and one helicopter pilot was captured.

The next day, the guerrillas celebrated a great victory over America â€“ dragging the bodies of the U.S. servicemen through the streets of Mogadishu.

But it was hardly a force of rag-tag Somalian rebels that had trapped the Americans. The intelligence tip received by U.S. forces about the presence of Aididâ€™s men was the setting of a trap by a combination of Islamicist forces directed by bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The ensuing ambush was conducted by hard-core battle-hardened Arab â€œAfghansâ€ and Iraqis. The main strike force consisted of troops trained by Iran and Iraq. Aididâ€™s forces were introduced later in large numbers to create the appearance of an enraged mob of Somalians taking revenge on U.S. forces.

â€¦..

Like I said, Bull Shit

Carol

8

Dale in Atlanta Said:
1:22 pm

Turnabout:

One Leftist conspiracy Nut (You); using another Conspracy Nut (Brock); to prove a “conspiracy”, isn’t exactly making your case on a rocksolid foundation, to prove a negative “..when our own intel reveals that it is the conservatives own policies that are making us less safe by the day.” of incorrectly Leftist spun selectively leaked “Intel” that is bous!

NICE!

Do more, I Like it when the Lunar Chiroptera come out during the daylight….

9

Turnabout Said:
2:35 pm

Dale,

I wasn’t trying to prove a conspiracy, I was taking exception with Rick’s use of the phrase “legitimate political activity.” He says that like what was done to Clinton was just good healthy politics and democracy. While what the Republicans were engaged in may have not been illegal it wasn’t very ethical or good for the country.

10

kat Said:
2:48 pm

Was that a Greenwald sockpuppet that posted that or was it not? LOL that someone thinks Glenn Greenwald is a name you can drop as a reliable source for rebuttal.

11

Green Glenweld Said:
2:50 pm

I belive that Glenn is a reliable source, yes I do.

12

Waldo Greenglenn Said:
2:51 pm

Yes, I concur. That Glenn is a swell fellow.

13

Richard Bottoms Said:
3:14 pm

>Was that a Greenwald sockpuppet that posted that or was it not?

Hmm, no response to the substance of what Sentaor Hutcheson said, just snark about the site where the quotes came from.

Typical.

If the quotes aren’t about cutting and running from Somalia, what were they then?

14

clarice feldman Said:
3:42 pm

I’m with Glenn. I don’t think this was a plus for the Dems.

I’m not with those who think this was planned. I think Clinton thought he’d get the usual softball interview—this one about his global initiative—and behaved just as one would expect someone with a narcissistic personality disorder who feels his legacy is shameful.

15

Dale in Atlanta Said:
4:20 pm

Turnabout: I’m sorry, I’m so fed up with Conspiracy Theories, and the Leftists that promote them, I just can’t take it anymore!

I spent the first 43 of my 48 years on this earth, completely APOLITICAL! When I DID vote, I thought it was encumbent up on me, as a Citizen, not to vote by Party Line, but to vote for the BEST POSSIBLE PERSON!

I know, a quaint ideal, outmoded in this current political environment.

As such, I voted Republican, I voted Democrat, I voted for Bill Clinton, I voted for no one in 2000, I voted for Bush in 2004.

Regardless, I cannot abide, at all, by the Conspiracy Nutbags, mainly Leftists, who absolutely put an evil Republican conspiracy theory “spin” on everything!

The “Republicans” didn’t do anything to Clinton; I voted for him, and he did it to himself!

End…..of…...story!

16

Richard Bottoms Said:
4:34 pm

>Conspiracy

Exactly what part of noting that Chris Wallace is a smirking tool of the Republicans via Fox News is a shock to anyone but true believers?

It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just Fox doing what it always does, tilting things to the right.

Clinton told Wallace to get bent. Good for him.

17

Waldo Greenglenn Said:
4:53 pm

>Itâ€™s not a conspiracy, itâ€™s just Fox doing what it always does, tilting things to the right.Clinton told Wallace to get bent. Good for him.

18

Waldo Greenglenn Said:
4:56 pm

Well that didn’t work right. You’all need a preview funtion here.
>Clinton told Wallace to get bent. Good for him.
I saw a clip of Olberman interview Der Bill, I thought he was going to blow him. Good for him.

19

Drewsmom Said:
5:10 pm

clinton made an utter fool out of himself and only reminded the people once again he is a liar, via the wagging finger alas, rekindles the crap he did in the house I pay rent on when he should have been taking care of business.
My God, he even took a call from arafat with monica under his desk while he talked to the man. !! True statemanship, but to liberals thats O.K. cuz its just sex for heavens sake.
clinton claimed the cia and fbi had to give him the o.k. or something to get obl but HELL, HE CONTROLS THE CIA AND FBI and had but a $5 MILLION DOLLAR BOUNTY ON HIS HEAD IN 98 BUT STILL HE DID JACK, that info came from a judge.
libs go away, you’ll not convince the average American bill was the hero here and it WILL NOT EFFECT FOX’S RATINGS, will probably rise them and I so sick of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY….....

20

Richard Bottoms Said:
5:19 pm

>clinton made an utter fool out of himself

He did, only if you don’t like him. If you do like him, he kicked butt. The Clinton haters think the rest of the public should be as angry as they are everytime Bill opens his mouth.

Sorry, I happen to think Bill Clinton is the man and certainly communicates better than El Presidente.

Why is it you guys are incapable of conceeding the fact that Fox is biased to the right? Does it negate every negative thing about Bill Clinton, and even we who love him think there are a number of negative things, to acknowledge reality?

Seems another prominent Republican has a similar problem. Unfortunately he’s the commander of all the armed forces.

21

Sweetie Said:
6:07 pm

“If you do like him, he kicked butt”

You really think so? I ask this because I am a Clinton fan (and a Bush fan) and I thought he melted down and lapsed into inappropriate bullying.

But then I see above where you’ve claimed that Chris Wallace is a tool of the Republican party and I know you’ve dropped all pretense of objectivity. You do know where he worked prior to Fox and who his Dad is, don’t you? Are they (ABC, Mike Wallace) also tools of the Republican party?

22

Richard Bottoms Said:
6:34 pm

>Are they (ABC, Mike Wallace) also tools of the Republican party?

He doesn’t work at ABC anymore.

Certainly he’s not the first child to do something that irritates/embarasses his dad.

I am tired of a Democrat standing up for himself being characterized as a meltdown/becoming unhinged/psychotic. Meanwhile Ann Coulter talks about poisoning a Justice of the Supreme Court and that’s that a little hyperbole for the masses.

So Clinton got mad. Good for him, I’d like to see more Democrats tell folks on Fox to stick it where the sun don’t shine. This idea that we’ll turn off the moderates and maybe keep some Republicans for supporting is a a load of BS.

If you aren’t done with the Republicans by now, nothing is going to change your mind.

Not an Army that is being ground into disrepair and unreadiness, not the teetering loss of Iraq, and not the fact that Afghanistan is in serious trouble all due to boy wonder’s failed leadership.

I am a Democrat becasue my party doesn’t stand for tortue and theirs does.

I am a Democrat because I believe the world is older than 10,000 years and that teaching otherwise belongs in church, not in school.

I am a Democrat because what is good for big business is not automatically good for the little people.

I am a Demcorat because letting the FDA hold up contraceptives over religion is stupid.

I am a Democrat because Teri Schiavo was brain dead and the yahoos in the other party diagnosed from the Senate floor.

I am a Democrat because I was a soldier and I see the so-called freedom loving Republicans sending troops on 4 & 5 rotations into battle while not bothering to find the nearest recruiting station and lending a hand.

In short I am a Democrat just like the Big Dog and I sincerley enjoy him talking a rhetorical bat to the other side.

I was surprised when I saw last week that President Clinton was set to appear on Fox News Sunday for an exclusive one on one interview. With Fox’s reputation as a right wing mouthpiece in some circles, it made no sense that Clinton would agree to appe…

If you missed Fox News Sunday’s interview with Bill Clinton, then you avoided a political tsunami of extraordinary proportions…

29

Drewsmom Said:
6:07 am

ricky bottoms and all on the left, how can you say Fox is biased when cnn has a panel of leftists only, keith, fired from sportscasting, olbermann NEVER has a conservative on his show, and yet you continue to lie about Fox,GIVE IT UP, AMERICANS ARE NOT LISTENING TO YOU.
WE ARE SAFER AND CONSERVATIVES REACT TO THINGS IN THE PROPER WAY, TERRORISM SHOULD NOT BE A CRIMINAL DEAL, THEY ATTACK US AND WANT TO KILL US ALL, WE HAVE TO ATTACK BACK …. PERIOD.
GROWN A BRAIN, PLEASE, before yall get us all killed with your PC BULLCRAP.

30

ed Said:
8:33 am

Dear Drewsmom:
I am sure you are a lovely woman and Drew is a child to be proud of. I have four that I am proud of. With all due respect however, terrorism is a VERY criminal matter. Like the Mafia, they are most effectively dealt with by tracing the flow of money (yes, I favor wiretaps, following private computer messaging, etc.) and intercepting the plans for terrorist acts and stopping them before they happen. The military is designed to fight other countries’ army’s, not a scattered bunch of nuts. The results of our military actions against terror speak for themselves. A country out of control (Iraq) and the emergent return of the Taliban in Afganistan. We did not get the Mafia under control by shootouts and we will not get the terrorists under control with military action.

31

Dale in Atlanta Said:
9:54 am

Richard Bottoms: I can’t go on a “I’m a Republican” rant, because I consider myself an Independent, and am registered as one; I’ve never voted “party line”, and never will; anyone who puts themselves thru the mental gymnastics, to agree with the hypocritical “party planks”, of EITHER party, is not right in the head to begin with! That said, read ‘er and weep…

I am tired of a Democrat standing up for himself being characterized as a meltdown/becoming unhinged/psychotic. Meanwhile Ann Coulter talks about poisoning a Justice of the Supreme Court and thatâ€™s that a little hyperbole for the masses.BILL CLINTON IS UNHINGED, AND A DEMONSTRABLE LIAR! AND I VOTED FOR HIM BY THE WAY! GET OFF THE BANDWAGON, THAT TRAIN LEFT THE STATION FIVE YEARS AGO, FORTUNATELY! ANN COULTER’S NONSENSE IS EXACTLY THAT, NONSENSE, AND YOU SHOULD PAY AS MUCH ATTENTION TO HER, FOR HER STUPIDITY, AS YOU DO TO CLINTON’S!

So Clinton got mad. Good for him, Iâ€™d like to see more Democrats tell folks on Fox to stick it where the sun donâ€™t shine. This idea that weâ€™ll turn off the moderates and maybe keep some Republicans for supporting is a a load of BS.I WATCH FOX NEWS, ABOUT AS MUCH AS WATCH CNN, OR ABC, OR NBC, OR CBS; WHICH IS, OH….NEVER! BUT I DO LOVE THE LEFTY OBSESSION WITH FNC; FOR 40 YEARS, THE LEFT HAS HAD NBC/CBS/ABC/WASPO/NYT/LATIMES, AND THEN LATER CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/PBS/TIME/NEWSWEEK, ETC.

THE “RIGHT” HAD TO “INVENT” TALK RADIO, BECAUSE THEY HAD NO WHERE ELSE TO GO; AND FINALLY, THEY GET THEIR OWN TV STATION, AND THE LEFT GOES NUTS! IT’S INCREDIBLE….

If you arenâ€™t done with the Republicans by now, nothing is going to change your mind.IF YOU AREN’T DONE WITH DEMOCRATS BY NOW, AS YOU SHOULD BE, NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND!

Not an Army that is being ground into disrepair and unreadiness, not the teetering loss of Iraq, and not the fact that Afghanistan is in serious trouble all due to boy wonderâ€™s failed leadership.
AH, FALLACY #1, AH FALLACY #2, AND AH…FALLACY #3, BUT THEN AGAIN, LUNAR CHIROPTERA LIVE IN A SPECIAL FANTASY WORLD ALL THEIR OWN…LEFTIES ON THE “SHIP OF FOOLS” SAILING FOR NARRAGONIA….

I am a Democrat becasue my party doesnâ€™t stand for tortue and theirs does.
I’M NOT A DEMOCRAT (NOT A REPLUBLICAN EITHER, BUT JUST TO KEEP IT SIMPLE); I’M NOT A DEMOCRAT, BECAUSE DEMOCRATS THINK THAT JIHADIES WHO BEHEAD PEOPLE, AND WHO REFUSE TO WEAR UNIFORMS, ARE ENTITLED TO MORE RIGHTS THAN AMERICAN CITIZENS, OUR MILITARY MEMBERS AND MILITARY PERSONNEL WHO UNDERGO SERE TRAINING, AND EVEN COLLEGE FRESHMEN WHO UNDERGO FRATERNITY HAZING!

I am a Democrat because I believe the world is older than 10,000 years and that teaching otherwise belongs in church, not in school.
I’M NOT A DEMOCRAT, BECAUSE DESPITE THE FACT I’M NOT A RELIGIOUS PERSON AT ALL, AND BELIEVE FIRMLY IN EVOLUTION; I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CHRISTIANS ARE “EVIL”, AND WORSE THAN THE JIHADIS WHO BEHEAD PEOPLE, MUTILATE THEIR BODIES, AND DRIVE AIRPLANES INTO SKYCRAPPERS AND MURDER 3000 INNOCENT PEOPLE! DEMOCRATS DO, BY THE WAY!

I am a Democrat because what is good for big business is not automatically good for the little people.
I’M NOT A DEMOCRATE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT CAPITALISM, HAS DONE MORE GOOD FOR THE WORLD, THAN ANY OTHER SYSTEM OF ECONOMICS, AND THAT IS DEMONSTRABLE, HISTORICALLY; I ALSO BELIEVE THAT NO ONE, IS “OWED” ANYTHING, BY ANYONE, INCLUDING OUR GOVERNMENT, THAT IT IS NOT A SIN TO WORK HARD, AND GO OUT AND TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY, INSTEAD OF SITTING AT HOME ON YOUR FAT ASS, DRINKING YOUR BEER YOU BOUGHT WITH FOODSTAMPS, SMOKING YOUR CIGARETTES YOU BOUGHT WITH YOUR WELFARE CHECK, AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE RECEPTION YOU’RE GETTING ON YOUR 60IN BIGSCREEN TV THAT YOU YOU PAID FOR BY SCAMMING YOUR MEDICARE!

I am a Demcorat because letting the FDA hold up contraceptives over religion is stupid.
I’M NOT A DEMOCRACT, BECAUSE DESPITE THE FACT I ACTUALLY LIKE SEX; I JUST DON’T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO STICK IT INTO ANYONE/ANYWHERE/ANYTIME, JUST BECAUSE IT “FEELS GOOD”, AND THEN, USE ABORTION AS A MEANS OF BIRTH CONTROL, BECAUSE WE’RE TOO LAZY, INDOLENT, ARROGANT, AND IMMATURE, TO SHOW A LITTLE DISCIPLINE AND RESTRAINT!

I am a Democrat because Teri Schiavo was brain dead and the yahoos in the other party diagnosed from the Senate floor.
I’M NOT A DEMOCRAT, BECAUSE WHETHER SHE WAS BRAIN DEAD OR NOT, HER PARENTS SHOULD’VE BEEN ALLOWED TO DECIDE IF THEY WANTED TO CARE FOR HER, AND NOT SOME DICKHEAD EX-HUSBAND, WHO WAS TRYING TO KILL HER OFF AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, SO HE COULD MARRY HIS GIRLFRIEND!

I am a Democrat because I was a soldier and I see the so-called freedom loving Republicans sending troops on 4 & 5 rotations into battle while not bothering to find the nearest recruiting station and lending a hand.
I’M NOT A DEMOCRAT, BECAUSE I WAS IN THE MARINE CORPS FOR 12 YEARS, SERVED IN IRAQ THE FIRST TIME AROUND, TRIED TO REJOIN THE SECOND TIME AROUND AND THEY WOULDN’T TAKE ME BECAUSE I’M TOO FREAKING OLD, AND WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE DRAFT RE-INSTITUTED FOR LEFTISTS, ONLY!

In short I am a Democrat just like the Big Dog and I sincerley enjoy him talking a rhetorical bat to the other side.IN SHORT, I’M NOT A DEMOCRAT, AND I ENJOY SEEING THE BIG WHORE (DID I MENTION I VOTED FOR HIM….??) TAKING A RHETORICAL BAT TO HIS OWN BACKSIDE; THE MORE HE TALKS, THE MORE HE REMINDS “NORMAL” AMERICANS, WHAT A TRULY LYING SACK OF SHIT HE WAS THE FIRST TIME AROUND, AND WHY WE CAN NEVER AGAIN TRUST A CLINTON, OR MORE IMPORTANT, THE DEMOCRATS, TO HAVE THE REINS OF POWER AGAIN!

ed: with all due respect, you’re more reasoned than your ideological roomate Richard Bottoms, but just as sadly wrong:

“With all due respect however, terrorism is a VERY criminal matter. Like the Mafia, they are most effectively dealt with by tracing the flow of money (yes, I favor wiretaps, following private computer messaging, etc.) and intercepting the plans for terrorist acts and stopping them before they happen. The military is designed to fight other countriesâ€™ armyâ€™s, not a scattered bunch of nuts. The results of our military actions against terror speak for themselves. A country out of control (Iraq) and the emergent return of the Taliban in Afganistan. We did not get the Mafia under control by shootouts and we will not get the terrorists under control with military action.”

This is the complete and utter fallacy the Clinton Administration adopted, from WTC ‘93, thru the Khobar Towers thru the East African AmEmb Bombings thru the USS Cole, and the only “sympathy” it engendered from the terrorists, was 9/11 and 3000 dead innocents, as they were getting ready for work.

Our mistake, and the Bush Administration’s as well, is we keep referring to them as “terrorists”, and thus completely missing the POINT: they are Religious fanatics, Islamists, Jihadis, Salafiyyah; with a 1000 year old+ Religious theology, backed up by reams of religious declarations, and precedent, and institutional authority and Islamist theocratic scholars!

Therefore, despite all the “PC” misquided nonsense, coming not only out of the Left, but this Administration trying to play it politically correct; this IS a RELIGIOUS War, declared by THEM, on “us”; and the sooner we realized it, quit trying to hide it and “finesse” it, and get down to the serious business of wiping them out, the better off we will all be!

This didn’t start with Clinton, or Bush, or Bush Sr., or Regean, or Carter, or the formation of the State of Israel, or when Napolean invaded Egypt, and all the people on the Left and Right, try to shift/assess blame, without looking at the REAL problem!

This started with a man named Ibn Tamiyyah, in the 11th Century, when he decided the Mongols, who had invaded and captured Muslim lands, were heathens, and that Islam was under attack, and retreat, because it wasn’t PURE Enough!

That’s when this started, and it hasn’t, fankly, ended since then!

The Crusades were not “our” fault, we have NOT radicalized Islam; they radicalized themselves, almost 1000 years ago.

THEN, when you’ve done that, you’ll be in the top 1/10th of 1% of people in this country with knowledge about this issue, and you’ll sadly realize, how not only how much danger we really face, but about how wrong BOTH sides are; and the fact that we have to take it SERIOUS, and WIPE THEM OUT NOW, is the only solution!

But treating it as a “criminal” matter, is dangerous, stupid, naive, and a recipe for Societal Suicide!

32

Richard Bottoms Said:
11:35 am

You know writing in all capital letters is often taken as a sign of… derangement.

>Iâ€™M NOT A DEMOCRAT, BECAUSE I WAS IN THE MARINE >CORPS FOR 12 YEARS

And I was in the Army for 13 years and tried to re-enlist two years ago. Snap.

Dude I made more money in the last five years then my Dad did in his entire life. My $500,000 condo has a wonderful view of the yacht club and I pay more in taxes than some people ear. I think capitalism is just peachy.

I am not a Republican and never will be because of people like Senator “Macaca” Allen and you.

33

Dale in Atlanta Said:
12:05 pm

Richard Bottoms:

DUDE, IT WAS SO YOU COULD SEE MY ANSWERS, VERSUS YOUR RAMBLINGS, DUDE!

SOME PEOPLE THINK CALLING OTHER PEOPLE “DERANGED”, IS THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK!

DUDE, SOME PEOPLE THINK CALLING OTHER PEOPLE “DUDE”, IS RUDE!

DUDE, I HAVE TO LECTURE MY 8 YEAR OLD ON THAT, DUDE!

DUDE; SO YOU TRIED TO RE-ENLIST TWO YEARS AGO? SO WHAT, YOU’RE THE ONE WHO IMPLIED THAT “REPUBLICANS” WOULDN’T GO TO IRAQ, AND ONLY TALKED, AND I PROVED YOU WRONG, “SNAP”, DUDE!

DUDE, I’VE MADE MORE IN THE PAST YEAR, THAN YOU’VE MADE IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS; BUT I WASN’T THE ONE WHO ATTACKED “REPUBLICANS” ABOUT “BIG BUSINESS” AND THE “LITTLE PEOPLE”, “SNAP”, DUDE!

OBVIOUSLY, YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF ONE OF THE “LITTLE PEOPLE”, WHICH IS INTERESTING IF YOU ACTUALLY DO LIVE IN A $50OK CONDO NEAR THE YATCH CLUB! BUT THEN AGAIN, THAT’S TYPICAL HYPOCRASY FROM THE LIMOSINE AND PRIVATE JET LEFTIST LIBERALS, DUDE “SNAP” DUDE!

I’M NOT A DEMOCRAT, BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE SENATOR “KKK” BYRD, SENATOR NANCY “CHE” PELOSI; SENATOR “FAKE WAR MEDALS” KERRY; SENATOR “BORN WITH A SILVER SPOON IN HER MOUTH” BOXER; CONGRESSMAN CHARLIE “I’LL SURRENDER TO EVERY ISLAMIST I CAN FIND” RANGLE; SENATOR TED “I’VE NEVER MET A BOTTLE I DIDN’T LIKE” KENNEDY; SENATOR HARRY “I NEVER MET AN INDIAN RESERVATION I COULDN’T CON OUTTA MONEY” REID; SENATOR HILLARY “I NEVER MET AN AMERICAN VOTER I COULDN’T LIE TO OR INTIMIDATE” CLINTON; FORMER PRESIDENT BILL “I’VE NEVER MET A WOMAN I COULDN’T SEDUCE OR RAPE” CLINTON; CONGRESSMAN BARNEY “ILL RUN A GAY ESCORT SERVICE OUTTA THE US CONGRESS” FRANK; CONGRESSMAN ALCEE “I’M A FEDERALLY CONVICTED FELON AND IMPEACHED JUDGE” HASTINGS; SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH “I ADVOCATE CONSENUAL SEX FOR TWELVE YEAR OLDS” GINSBERG; MICHAEL “I HATE AMERICA” MOORE; GEORGE “I HATE AMERICA EVEN MORE” CLOONEY”; JANE “NO, I HATE AMERICA THE MOST” FONDA; FORMER PRESIDENT “I’LL PROSTITUTE MYSELF ALL OVER THE WORLD ATTACKING MY OWN COUNTRY SO I CAN WIN A NOBEL PEACE PRICE” CARTER; FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AL “I’VE COMPLETELY LOST MY MARBLES” GORE; SUSAN “NO, IT’S ME WHO HATES AMERICA THE MOST” SARANDON; TIM “NO, I’LL PROVE IT’S ME WHO HATES AMERICA THE MOST, I’LL SAY SOMETHING REALLY, REALLY STUPID” ROBBINS; SEAN “I’M STILL PISSED OFF MY DAD WAS A COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZER DURING THE 50’S SO I’M GONNA BET BACK AT BUSH” PENN; AL “I’VE NEVER BEEN FUNNY IN MY WHOLE LIFE SO I’LL PRETEND I’M A SATYRIST (PUN INTENDED) THAT WAY NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW I WASN’T FUNNY AND THEY’LL MISTAKE ME FOR A FUNNY LEFTIST” FRANKEN; MEL “I’M A RADICAL CATHOLIC WHO HATES JEWS SO I’M THE PERFECT LEFTIST EVEN THOUGH EVERYBODY THINKS I’M RIGHTWING BECAUSE I’M CATHOLIC SO I’LL COME OUT AND SAY STUPID STUFF ABOUT BUSH TO PROVE MY LEFTY CREDENTIALS AND ALSO SELL MY NEW MOVIE THAT’S GOT NIFTY MULTICULTURAL MAYAN DIALOGE THAT NO ONE IN A THOUSAND YEARS HAS ACTUALLY SPOKEN” GIBSON; AND you (SMALL LETTERS ON PURPOSE); DUDE, “SNAP”!

I COULD’VE ADDED A COUPLE THOUSAND MORE, BUT GOTTA GO OUT AND EARN ANOTHER $1OK TODAY!